Evidence Hub

Long-Term Outcomes of Sacral Neuromodulation for Refractory Interstitial Cystitis/Bladder Pain Syndrome: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Rekatsina M, Leoni MLG, Visser-Vandewalle V, Mercieri M, Varrassi G, Matis G

Journal of clinical medicine, 2025

24 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Background: Interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome (IC/BPS) is a chronic condition characterized by persistent bladder-related pain and urinary symptoms, often refractory to conventional treatments. Sacral neuromodulation (SNM) has emerged as a promising therapeutic option for managing refractory IC/BPS. Methods: This retrospective study included 24 patients with IC/BPS treated with SNM between 2017 and 2022. Baseline and follow-up data were collected on pain, opioid use, urinary symptoms, and quality of life. Patients underwent a trial of tonic stimulation before permanent implantation. Continuous variables were reported as median (IQR) and categorical data as counts and percentages. Pre- and post-SNM differences were analyzed using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Kaplan-Meier analysis evaluated lead survival, and a Sankey diagram illustrated employment status transitions. Results: Patients had a median age of 54.5 years (IQR: 47-61), with 92% female. Subtypes included Type 1 IC/BPS (8.3%), Type 2 (45.8%), Type 3 (37.6%), and unknown type (8.3%). Median pain duration was 4.5 years (IQR: 3-7.3). SNM resulted in significant improvements in pain (NRS: baseline 8 [IQR: 8-9], last follow-up 3 [IQR: 2-4], p p p p Conclusions: SNM significantly improved pain, urinary symptoms, quality of life, and employment outcomes in patients with refractory IC/BPS. These findings highlight its efficacy as a minimally invasive and reversible option for managing this challenging condition.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 24 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free